INTRODUCTION
When people hear the word motherhood, they usually associate it with pregnancy and childbirth, but motherhood is much more than giving birth; it is about love, care, patience and building a lifelong bond with a child. Whether a woman becomes a mother through childbirth or adoption, the emotions, responsibilities, and attachment involved remain equally significant. However, Indian law earlier gave maternity benefits to adoptive mothers only if they adopted a child below the age of three months.[1] This raised an important question in front of society: should motherhood be treated differently just because a child is adopted later? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in the landmark case of Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India (2026)[2], and the judgment given by the Honourable Supreme Court has become an important step for adoptive mothers in India.
In a recent case before the Supreme Court of India, an adoptive mother of two children, she has challenged Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020. According to this clause, only women who adopted a child below the age of three months could receive the maternity benefit of 12weeks. She argued that the law was unfair because it treated adoptive mothers differently.
THE LEGAL PREMISE OF THE DISPUTE
The petitioner, who is an adoptive mother of two children, has filed the petition, which challenged Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020. According to this clause, only women who adopted a child below the age of three months could receive the maternity benefit of 12weeks. The petitioner argued that the law was unfair because it treated adoptive mothers differently.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT
The main issue before the court was “Should adoptive mothers lose maternity benefits only because the adopted child is older than three months?”
The Petitioner’s Challenge: Equality Beyond Biological Motherhood: The petitioner believed the law was unfair and discriminatory, while the government believed the restriction was reasonable. The petitioner argued that Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 creates an arbitrary and unreasonable distinction between adoptive mothers solely based on the age of the adopted child. According to her, denying maternity benefits to women adopting children older than three months amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India[3], which guarantees equality before the law. She further submitted that such exclusion could adversely affect the physical and mental well-being of adoptive mothers. The petitioner also highlighted the practical difficulties arising from the lengthy adoption process under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015[4], noting that legal adoption procedures often take two to three months or even longer, thereby making many adoptive mothers ineligible for maternity benefits through no fault of their own.
Additionally, she argued that linking maternity benefits to the age of the adopted child imposes an unreasonable burden on working women and may discourage adoption, thereby interfering with their freedom to make personal and professional choices protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution[5]. She further contended that Section 60(4) violates Article 21[6] because it restricts an adoptive mother’s ability to fully experience and fulfil motherhood, while also affecting the child’s right to proper care, emotional support, and healthy development. Thus, the provision not only harms adoptive mothers but also infringes upon their right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Union Government’s Defence: On the other hand, the Union Government defended the provision by arguing that the restriction under Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 was reasonable and constitutionally valid. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) submitted that the provision should not be interpreted in isolation but rather in the broader context and purpose of maternity benefits under the Code. He argued that the adoption process had been streamlined by granting District Magistrates the authority to issue adoption orders, thereby reducing delays in completing legal adoptions under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The ASG also contended that adoptive mothers who are unable to avail maternity benefits after adopting a child older than three months are not left without support, as they can make use of crèche facilities provided under Section 67 of the Social Security Code, 2020, which are intended to help working mothers balance childcare responsibilities with professional commitments. Additionally, he argued that the three-month age limit constitutes a reasonable classification because children older than three months may not have the same degree of immediate dependency on caregivers as children below the age of three months. On these grounds, the respondents maintained that Section 60(4) represents a valid policy decision aimed at balancing childcare needs with employment-related considerations and therefore does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
THE JUDGMENT AND ITS WIDER IMPACT
The Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of the petitioner and struck down the restrictive phrase “below the age of three months” from Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020. The Court held that denying maternity benefits to adoptive mothers based solely on the age of the adopted child was arbitrary and violated the purpose of maternity protection. The judgment emphasised that adoptive mothers deserve the same recognition and support as biological mothers. As a result, all adoptive mothers are now entitled to twelve weeks of maternity benefits regardless of the child’s age, and the Court also urged the Union Government to consider introducing paternity leave provisions within the social security framework.
CONCLUSION
The decision in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India represents a progressive step in the evolution of Indian constitutional and social welfare jurisprudence. By striking down the restrictive age-based condition contained in Section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that motherhood cannot be understood solely through the lens of biology. Rather, motherhood is defined by care, emotional commitment, responsibility, and the nurturing of a parent-child relationship, irrespective of whether the child is born or adopted. This judgement has also strengthened the guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and dignity enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the decision sends a powerful social message by affirming that adoptive families deserve the same legal recognition and protection as biological families.
Author: S S Sakshi (Asian Law College, Noida)
References:
[1] Social Security Code 2020, s 60(4)
[2] Hamsaanandini Nanduri v Union of India (2026) 2026 INSC 246
[3] Constitution of India, art 14
[4] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015
[5] Constitution of India, art 19(1)(g)
[6] Constitution of India, art 21
